Jyothisha C J vs Station House Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 4032 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4032 Ker
Judgement Date : 13 February, 2025

Kerala High Court

Jyothisha C J vs Station House Officer on 13 February, 2025

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                                   &

              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA

    THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946

                       WP(CRL.) NO. 150 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

          JYOTHISHA C J., AGED 32 YEARS
          D/O JANARDHANAN NAIR, CHARUVILA PUTHE VEEDU, RAMAKKAL
          METTU. IDUKKI -, PIN - 685552

          BY ADV M.KABANI DINESH


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          CUMBUMMETTU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI, PIN - 685551

    2     DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA,
          PAINAVU P O IDUKKI., PIN - 685551

    3     THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
          POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695024

    4     SREERAJ, S/O SASIDARAN NAIR MAVARAYIL (H)
          KARUNAPURAM, IDUKKI, PIN - 685552

          SRI P M SHAMEER-GP;


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                         2025:KER:11948
WP(CRL.) NO. 150 OF 2025

                                    2



                               JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

This petition has been filed by the mother of a 9-year-old

girl alleging that the fourth respondent, namely her divorced

husband, has violated Ext.P2 order of the learned Family Court,

Kattappana and has removed the child to an undisclosed location,

thus detaining her solely with the intent of denying every contact

between mother and daughter.

2. Hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner -

Smt.Kabani Dinesh, on the afore lines on 06.02.2025, we allowed

the petitioner to take out notice to the fourth respondent by

special messenger; pursuant to which, the said respondent, along

with the child, appeared before us on 10.02.2025.

3. We considered the matter on the afore date and

indited an order, which is self explanatory and hence extracted

below:

"The petitioner alleges that the 4th respondent is detaining her child without disclosing her whereabouts and address.

However, the 4th respondent, who appeared in person before us, today, submits that the child is studying in 'Prabodhini School, Vakkam'; and that his address is as available in the cause title of this case. He asserted that the child is not under the detention and offered that the mother can take her from school tomorrow, to retain her at night; provided she brings 2025:KER:11948 WP(CRL.) NO. 150 OF 2025

her back to school in the morning thereafter.

We propose to accept the afore arrangement. We, therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 13.02.2025, permitting the mother to take interim custody of the child after school hours on 11.02.2025; on condition that she will bring her back to school on 12.02.2025 in the morning."

4. Today, Smt.M.Kabani Dinesh - learned counsel for the

petitioner, conceded that the child was with her client as ordered

above and that she has now returned to Dubai, where she is

presently working. She argued that it is thus obvious that the

child is not alienated from the mother in any manner; and

pleaded that the attempt of the father to do so, therefore, be seen

very seriously. She thus prayed that necessary action against the

fourth respondent be taken by this Court.

5. The fourth respondent - Sreeraj, appeared in person

and submitted that he has no intention of violating any Court

order and that he has not done so. He argued that, since the

mother is outside India, the visitation offered to her by the

learned Family Court has now become unviable, but that he is

willing to allow his child to talk to her every day, if a phone is

made available, since he does not have a device as of now.

6. Smt.M.Kabani Dinesh, at this time, submitted that her

client has handed over a mobile phone of make and model:

2025:KER:11948 WP(CRL.) NO. 150 OF 2025

Nokia - 105, with a SIM, with phone number 9656442368 to

Sri.Sreeraj and that her client will call to that number every day

between 7 and 8 p.m. Sri.Sreeraj, namely the fourth respondent,

affirmed that he has received the phone and agreed that the

mother can talk to the child every day between 7 and 8 p.m., but

praying that it be clarified that this will be subject to her consent

and without disturbing her curricular and other requirements.

7. In the afore circumstances, though we find no

requirement to modify Ext.P1 order of the learned Family Court,

Kattappana, we are certain that we will be justified in allowing

the afore requested liberty to the petitioner, since the parties are

in consent.

8. That said, we cannot find the child to be under

detention, much less illegal detention, since the child was with

the mother as per the arrangement we made in the afore

extracted order.

9. In the afore circumstances, this Original Petition is

ordered, confirming our afore-extracted interim order dated

10.02.2025; with liberty being reserved to the petitioner to talk